This is from the article in regards to the BIG EAST as compared to the other leagues: Appears the BIG EAST is in a "No Man's Land" and the B1G/Pac 12/Rose Bowl crap.

Estimates on what the new model would earn start as low as $350 million, but could end up substantially higher, sources said. But how would the piles of money be divided?

One source said "market size" will determine how the money will be divided. Another thinks they'll use "historical participation."

Exactly what factors would determine a "market size" model? Certainly it would mean the leagues with the biggest markets that pull the biggest television ratings would earn more, such as the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12 and ACC.

It's no surprise the Mountain West, Conference USA, Mid-American, Sun Belt and Western Athletic conferences wouldn't fit that description.

The Big East? That's a tough one.

Including the league's non-football members, starting in 2013, the Big East will have 14 conference members located among the top 30 television markets. However, the Big East's vast markets haven't been a selling point to the BCS bowls. In the past eight seasons, the Big East champion has been the last team selected by the BCS bowls six times. The only two times the Big East champion wasn't the last team selected was in 2006 and 2007 when it was the second-to-last team picked ahead of Boise State (ironically a Big East member starting in 2013) and Hawaii.

Another unknown concerning the new playoff system is what happens to the Rose Bowl.

Before next week's BCS meetings in Hollywood, Fla., the Rose Bowl Managing Committee will meet about how college football's future could impact the Rose Bowl. The RBMC consists of Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, some Rose Bowl executive members and an athletic director representing each conference.

One of the proposals in the April 4 document was the Four Teams Plus. That model allows the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions to play in the Rose Bowl, while two national semifinals also would be held (without the Big Ten or Pac-12 champion). After the three games are played, two teams (no one is sure how) would be selected to advance to the national title game.

Not many individuals are taking that model seriously. "You can guess who proposed that one," a source said.

Another source said the Big Ten proposed that model to appease the Rose Bowl to show them that they were making an effort to keep the game from losing its champions to a playoff. But, the reality is, that's exactly what will happen in a four-team model, whether it's the four highest-ranked teams or four conference champions

"This says 'we tried,' but why would any other leagues go for that," an industry source said. "The others leagues would have to play ranked teams in the semifinal, while the Pac-12 champ would play 8-4 Illinois. That's a worse deal than we have now.

"The bottom line is that in any four-team scenario the Rose Bowl becomes a consolation game."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...bcs-groups

We're on the edge of glory.

(04-16-2012 08:11 PM)justinslot Wrote:  We're on the edge of glory.

I'm still wondering what the underlined passages are underlined for. The markets are significant for our television deal. We always knew that we were further down the line in the bowl hunt. We're paying for past sins.

Nothing to see there.

His point on when the Big East team was chosen is not completely accurate since it doesn't take into account conferences that have a ie in such as the ACC. I think that you could say that if the ACC was also thrown in such a pool then teams like Wake Forest when it won the ACC bid wold have been chosen towards the end and probably behind Louisville the BE rep that year.

(04-16-2012 08:48 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 08:11 PM)justinslot Wrote:  We're on the edge of glory.

I'm still wondering what the underlined passages are underlined for. The markets are significant for our television deal. We always knew that we were further down the line in the bowl hunt. We're paying for past sins.

Nothing to see there.

I don't get it either.

Only thing I got was that Big East use to be a small conf...but will now have 14 teams in mostly Top 30 TV markets, which is a good thing...but looking at the OP's past posts...he thought it was a negative/knock on the new conf, which its not.

Knightlight...never bashed the upcoming BIG EAST. Got me confused with some other posters I guess.

This is the issue that I've said all aliasing would be the toughest one: how is the revenue split? Who actually gets into a playoff doesn't mean as much as who gets paid for it.

"Historical participation", as someone who would know explained to me a couple of months ago, is making full shares of the new postseason revenue based upon a conference having a supermajority of its membership that is made up of original BCS members (the "equity" partners that Jim Delany talked about before).

It's not hard to read between the lines that "market size" qualifications would be better for the Big East, while "historical participation" would be pretty bad. We may end up seeing something in between for the Big East where it wouldn't receive the same as the SEC et. al but get something higher than the MWC/C-USA alliance (basically reflecting the regular season TV contract values).

Quote:Including the league's non-football members, starting in 2013, the Big East will have 14 conference members located among the top 30 television markets. However, the Big East's vast markets haven't been a selling point to the BCS bowls. In the past eight seasons, the Big East champion has been the last team selected by the BCS bowls six times. The only two times the Big East champion wasn't the last team selected was in 2006 and 2007 when it was the second-to-last team picked ahead of Boise State (ironically a Big East member starting in 2013) and Hawaii.

This paragraph is a big cercle jurk.

- McMurphy starts by talking about the Big East membership in 2013 and their media markets.

- And ends by being critical of that said group because of the performance of the conference in its earlier incarnation.

- While never addressing the fact that key programs he's being critical of were poached by the other BCS conferences.

- But he does mention that the Boise was picked after the BE champion in '06, and that they are "ironically a Big East member starting in 2013." (the year they beat OU)

Hey McMurphy, Why isn't it "ironic" that Syracuse and Pitt are in the ACC? Or that WV is in the Big 12?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... Good analysis.

Historical participation would hit the acc just as hard

(04-16-2012 09:00 PM)Cubanbull Wrote:  His point on when the Big East team was chosen is not completely accurate since it doesn't take into account conferences that have a ie in such as the ACC. I think that you could say that if the ACC was also thrown in such a pool then teams like Wake Forest when it won the ACC bid wold have been chosen towards the end and probably behind Louisville the BE rep that year.

Why is it that the Big East had no tie-in with a major bowl? Obviously, because no major bowl wanted to have one with us.

It is pretty clear that since 2004 NO major bowl has ever willingly taken a Big East team, and that was when we had West Virginia, a program with the best reputation for traveling among all of us. If there wasn't a BCS rule mandating our champion's participation in a BCS bowl, our champion would not have been selected most of the time over the past 8 years.

I am crossing my fingers that whatever new arrangement that emerges from these BCS meetings will be favorable for the Big East, but i suspect that the outcome will be a demotion, one in which we are in a "tweener" situation, making more money and having more access than currently non-AQs like the WAC, but no longer on an equal footing with the SEC.

Quo I think you are right. The new system will not add access, but take it away. I expect the BE will be in a similar situation to where the old Non BCS were, and the alliance, sunbelt, mac will be all but shut out. they will be given a few BCS bucks to appease them but their overall position will be much worse.

(04-17-2012 05:12 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Historical participation would hit the acc just as hard

When you compare the amount of football national championships between the 2 conferences just in the last 25-30 years there is a huge difference. A league with Miami, VT and FSU is not going to be left out of whatever arrangement that comes out of all this.

What the BE has going for it is, as was mentioned, its markets. I also think that the fact that the BE has markets stretching from New Jersey to California will be some kind of bonus for the league as well. I dont know if there has ever been any kind of league that could have games being played in 3 different time zones from the east coast to the west coast and all in between. That has to be attractive to the networks. This may yet turn out to be a brilliant move by Marrinatto and company.

(04-17-2012 05:12 AM)Cubanbull Wrote:  Historical participation would hit the acc just as hard

No, not at all. The ACC is 100% composed of schools that were BCS members in 1998, just like the SEC and Big Ten. The Pac-12 let in Utah while the Big 12 let in TCU. Rutgers is the only original BCS member that the Big East has left.

But it is funny, some of those championships - at least Miami were done under the BE, not ACC banner.

But of course I guess that doesn't count!

(04-16-2012 10:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is the issue that I've said all aliasing would be the toughest one: how is the revenue split? Who actually gets into a playoff doesn't mean as much as who gets paid for it.

"Historical participation", as someone who would know explained to me a couple of months ago, is making full shares of the new postseason revenue based upon a conference having a supermajority of its membership that is made up of original BCS members (the "equity" partners that Jim Delany talked about before).

It's not hard to read between the lines that "market size" qualifications would be better for the Big East, while "historical participation" would be pretty bad. We may end up seeing something in between for the Big East where it wouldn't receive the same as the SEC et. al but get something higher than the MWC/C-USA alliance (basically reflecting the regular season TV contract values).

In other words, if that plays out, not much changes in regards to the Big East? Honest question.

(04-17-2012 08:00 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  But it is funny, some of those championships - at least Miami were done under the BE, not ACC banner.

But of course I guess that doesn't count!

I believe Miami only won one championship under the BE banner in. The others were when Miami was an indy.

(04-17-2012 12:27 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

Quote:Including the league's non-football members, starting in 2013, the Big East will have 14 conference members located among the top 30 television markets. However, the Big East's vast markets haven't been a selling point to the BCS bowls. In the past eight seasons, the Big East champion has been the last team selected by the BCS bowls six times. The only two times the Big East champion wasn't the last team selected was in 2006 and 2007 when it was the second-to-last team picked ahead of Boise State (ironically a Big East member starting in 2013) and Hawaii.

This paragraph is a big cercle jurk.

- McMurphy starts by talking about the Big East membership in 2013 and their media markets.

- And ends by being critical of that said group because of the performance of the conference in its earlier incarnation.

- While never addressing the fact that key programs he's being critical of were poached by the other BCS conferences.

- But he does mention that the Boise was picked after the BE champion in '06, and that they are "ironically a Big East member starting in 2013." (the year they beat OU)

Hey McMurphy, Why isn't it "ironic" that Syracuse and Pitt are in the ACC? Or that WV is in the Big 12?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... Good analysis.

I think you're discounting the fact that McMurphy is pretty plugged in, and is talking to actual BCS/FBS decision makers. If he's writing this, it's probably reflecting opinions voiced by The Powers That Be.

And to some extent, they have a point. For one thing, the number he's using (which is presumably the number Marinatto is selling) overcounts the market access of the football league. McMurphy says "14 conference members in top 30 markets", but that counts football-only members. I don't think a lot of Georgetown fans in Washington or Villanova fans in Philadelphia make a special effort to see the Big East football champion's BCS game.

The second major point is, for any given BCS game, the Big East is only likely to deliver one of those markets. I think that, if, say, SMU won the Big East and went to a major bowl, you'd get a very good rating in Dallas. But you wouldn't see much interest in Philadelphia, Hartford, Orlando, San Diego etc. Strong college football fanbases would tend to watch their conference champion, and most Big East football schools aren't at that point.

The Powers That Be will run these formulas through spreadsheets. And if the "Market Access" spreadsheet gives the Big East power-conference type money, I think that means that the "Market Access" formula gets tossed in the trash. (I don't think the six non-power conferences will allow a "historic participation" formula like Frank described to pass either.)

(04-17-2012 08:21 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 08:00 AM)Wooglin157 Wrote:  But it is funny, some of those championships - at least Miami were done under the BE, not ACC banner.

But of course I guess that doesn't count!

I believe Miami only won one championship under the BE banner in. The others were when Miami was an indy.

Believe Miami won 2 under the Big East Banner (1991 and 2001).

Miami also won national titles in '83, '87 and '89.

(04-17-2012 08:32 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 12:27 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

Quote:Including the league's non-football members, starting in 2013, the Big East will have 14 conference members located among the top 30 television markets. However, the Big East's vast markets haven't been a selling point to the BCS bowls. In the past eight seasons, the Big East champion has been the last team selected by the BCS bowls six times. The only two times the Big East champion wasn't the last team selected was in 2006 and 2007 when it was the second-to-last team picked ahead of Boise State (ironically a Big East member starting in 2013) and Hawaii.

This paragraph is a big cercle jurk.

- McMurphy starts by talking about the Big East membership in 2013 and their media markets.

- And ends by being critical of that said group because of the performance of the conference in its earlier incarnation.

- While never addressing the fact that key programs he's being critical of were poached by the other BCS conferences.

- But he does mention that the Boise was picked after the BE champion in '06, and that they are "ironically a Big East member starting in 2013." (the year they beat OU)

Hey McMurphy, Why isn't it "ironic" that Syracuse and Pitt are in the ACC? Or that WV is in the Big 12?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... Good analysis.

I think you're discounting the fact that McMurphy is pretty plugged in, and is talking to actual BCS/FBS decision makers. If he's writing this, it's probably reflecting opinions voiced by The Powers That Be.

One can be plugged in and still write a meaningless paragraph, complete with undertoned insults, plus even contradicting one's self in the same paragraph.

Being plugged in might be nice...doesn't mean their writing makes sense.

(04-17-2012 08:17 AM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(04-16-2012 10:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  This is the issue that I've said all aliasing would be the toughest one: how is the revenue split? Who actually gets into a playoff doesn't mean as much as who gets paid for it.

"Historical participation", as someone who would know explained to me a couple of months ago, is making full shares of the new postseason revenue based upon a conference having a supermajority of its membership that is made up of original BCS members (the "equity" partners that Jim Delany talked about before).

It's not hard to read between the lines that "market size" qualifications would be better for the Big East, while "historical participation" would be pretty bad. We may end up seeing something in between for the Big East where it wouldn't receive the same as the SEC et. al but get something higher than the MWC/C-USA alliance (basically reflecting the regular season TV contract values).

In other words, if that plays out, not much changes in regards to the Big East? Honest question.

With respect to postseason money, it would be a significant change. Up to now, the Big East has been receiving a BCS share that has been equal to the other AQ conference and that's what at great risk/probability of changing.